At the end of last week, a good friend sent me a screenshot of a column that was published in one of the newspapers about the way people correspond on WhatsApp, and more precisely - the way they send messages: if they invest in formulating one long message, like writing an email, for example, or whether they Send fragmented messages, in short sentences.
The moral of the column was that those people who send short messages on WhatsApp, one after the other, are actually imposing their presence in the space in an egoistic and inconsiderate way, straying into total attention outside the measured limits of the application.
Of course, it's no coincidence that my close friend sent me this text.
As I finished reading this incriminating document, I was on the tip of my thumb to answer him:
00:01 Wow!
00:01 I didn't know it was so disturbing
00:01 I apologize
00:01 I promise
00:02 I will stop
But instead, I decided to look into the matter in depth before committing myself to atonement.
I must have sinned
My basic mindset is to immediately believe anyone who claims I'm wrong.
For those who automatically believe that they are guilty, like me, three central feelings arise:
1. I am guilty.
Without a doubt, I was horrified by the suffering I was causing, horrified by what it said about me, and felt ashamed that I didn't realize until reading this column that I was hurting people because of my writing style.
2. I am an exception.
I concluded that the column represents the normal majority, and that I am the only weirdo who prefers to read and write short messages.
3. I have to change.
"Paula - get over yourself. You don't send messages like this anymore in your life! Look what damage you're doing!".
I have a feeling that those who belong to this pattern are the most profitable clients of psychologists.
Indeed, thanks to thousands of hours and decades of therapy, I have learned to question the automatic thought patterns and not to believe everything I think - and certainly not to believe everything others think.
The danger of a single story
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, award-winning author and graduate of Yale University, speaks in her popular TED Talk on "The Danger of the Single Story."
(To watch her full lecture - go below, to the corner "Do it to me").
The reason that at first I doubted myself, instead of doubting the story the column tells, stems from our tendency to believe a report in a newspaper, book or television.
The fact that a story gets a platform in the media strengthens its credibility, and the assumption that it is true and presents the full picture.
Adichie explains in her lecture that when we believe a single story, we are blocked and incapable of more complex feelings than a single emotion: disgust, pity, anger or admiration, compared to a human mix that has a variety of qualities.
Adichie, who was born in Nigeria, explains the damage done by the only story that is presented about Africa in the Western world, that it does not allow people who come from Africa to be seen beyond being refugees of wars, poverty, diseases and corrupt regimes, and how the only story about Africa has hurt her throughout her life.
A single story as a demonstration of power
Another interesting claim she makes is that a single story tells how much better I am than someone else, a privilege reserved for the powerful.
"The power is expressed not only in the ability to tell the story of the other, but to determine it as the absolute story of that person."
This is how stereotypes are created, when only the negative side is told and no voice is given to those about whom the story is told.
The column that my good friend sent me was skillfully written, but did not tell the story of that journalist - but the story of the other, without being given the opportunity to respond.
He did not write about his discomfort when he receives short messages one after the other, but the story of the message writers.
A lesson from a woman addicted to Botox
I too sin in a single story in relation to others, just like all of us.
Two and a half years ago, during the Corona lockdown, I came across a post on Instagram by a woman who owns a beauty salon, I'll call her Leanne, who wrote: "The thing that bothers me most about the lockdown is that Shuli's clinic was closed, and I haven't had Botox for a month and a half! I can't look at myself in the mirror because of I got wrinkles! As soon as the lockdown is over, I show up first. I go to sleep by the door so that no one overtakes me."
The post was decorated with a selfie in which she is seen pouting her swollen lips, her hair is dyed platinum blonde and she is heavily made up.
I approached her and asked to interview her, as part of a seminar I wrote about the changes in women's perception of self-worth during the corona epidemic.
I won't lie - I came to the interview with a condescending attitude.
I thought I had found a good story for the seminar about the damage caused by the beauty industry.
Today I realize that I told a single story, in which I, the educated and broad-minded woman studying for a master's degree at Tel Aviv University, am going to interview Leanne - who is only interested in her wrinkles.
Even before we met I felt pity and criticism towards her.
Today I understand how much the feelings testified only about me: about my narrow horizons and the stereotypes in which I am imprisoned.
As the interview with Leanne progressed, I was filled with empathy - and also shame: she told about her struggles to establish an independent business, about the hard work around the clock, about the difficulties of combining motherhood and professional fulfillment, about leaving a stable job in a public body after 15 years, during which she won bonuses four times for being Excellent worker.
Everything - to fulfill a dream of opening a beauty salon, despite the opposition of her family and the financial risks.
I was surprised to find out how much we have in common, much more than the few milliliters of hyaluronic acid and botulinum toxin that separate us.
No matter how many seminars and doctorates I write, in order not to fall into a single story, I must admit that I do not know everything about anyone, and this cannot be learned in any university degree.
The interview with Leanne was a tremendous lesson in humility.
It was easy for me to believe that I was enlightened, because I always showed sensitivity to disadvantaged groups.
But the meeting with Liane taught me that openness and curiosity towards the hijab women in Iran, or towards those who pass the word of women in Kenya, or towards women who experience violence from their partners - are much easier and more comfortable than removing stereotypes from me towards a woman who is addicted to Botox.
It is very easy for us to show openness towards extreme cases of injustice and injustice, but it is very little wisdom to be selectively enlightened.
Imitate a man who stutters
The same column published last week was written in a sarcastic style, imitating its subjects through short and fragmented lines.
There is a cruel element in imitation when it is connected to deluded and judgmental content.
I was overwhelmed with discomfort, the kind that is felt when someone imitates a person with a disability or handicap, like watching someone imitate a person who stutters.
That column was written from the assumption that the only reason for writing fragmented messages is pure egoism, without question and without checking the version of the side against which the writing arrows were directed.
In my opinion - this indicates exactly the complaint that the writer raised towards the other side, about insensitivity.
Some attempt, minimal, to understand what makes people write in this way, would illuminate the whole column in a different light.
I don't know if the detailed psychological analysis that the writer made of the mental structure of the senders of the multiple messages in a row is based on a factual test, but I did check.
Show me your messages, and I'll tell you who you are
Depending on the place that chats have taken in our lives, there are many studies that analyze the patterns of written communication.
Dr. Lauren Collister, a communications expert at the University of Pittsburgh, defines texting as an informal playground—as opposed to correspondence like email—and explains that it's an opportunity for people to express their uniqueness in a way that's more like speaking. She claims that people who use text messages frequently will be more inclined to Write informally. Another influential factor is character: lively and spontaneous people will plan less before sending a message, and will be less afraid of making mistakes in syntax. Rational, calculated and more closed-minded people will tend to draft a complete message, correct it - and only then send it.
Text in paragraphs versus multiple lines one after the other is a stylistic difference, which also affects the recipient of the message.
There are those who will be annoyed by this type of messages, while others feel more comfortable with such correspondence, because it is more like a spoken conversation.
The differences depend on the nature of the person receiving the message.
The age of the correspondents is also an influential factor, because the accepted norms for adults and young people are different.
The communication style of the sender may conflict with the style and expectations of the recipient of the message, just like in a verbal conversation, which also creates communication failures between people with different styles.
In fact, any type of communication requires adaptation and understanding that each of us has our own way of communicating with others, and recognizing that we cannot control others' style.
After reading Dr. Collister's conclusions, my breathing became easier. Maybe I'm not the inconsiderate woman described in the column. Collister told a broad story, not a single story about people who text.
The three point anxiety
While I'm writing a message on WhatsApp, the recipient says "Paula is typing...".
The waiting effect evokes feelings of anxiety and uncertainty, and when the typing time is long, the tension increases and the anxiety rises.
Some people are unable to concentrate on anything else, as long as they know that another person is typing a message for them.
Researchers have defined this phenomenon "the anxiety of the three points".
Sending short messages eliminates or reduces the anxiety and the "captivity experience" of the other party, until the message arrives.
Could it be that precisely those people - who draft long paragraphs, check and correct while the other party is waiting for their response - are actually taking more attention?
Worth exploring, I'll update.
Search, period
Prof. Deborah Tanen concluded in her research that many words are a sign of a strong connection and great interest in certain cultures, and called it a "high involvement style", while in other cultures listening and less active communication are more valued, and in her definition "high consideration style".
Another concept I found is called "dry writer" - those who respond with one word.
According to the study, they are seen as alienated, inconsiderate and too rational.
Dry - for your attention.
One of the most surprising elements I found concerns the effect of the perception of a full stop at the end of a sentence.
Researchers at Binghamton University found that text messages that contained a period at the end of a sentence were rated by readers as "less honest" than those that did not contain a period.
Another study, which examined the texting style of couples, found that couples with a similar texting style expressed higher relationship satisfaction.
Suffering from a communication style different from your own?
Look for your friends, the ones that suit you better, or talk to the other about your predicament.
Making negative assumptions is an ineffective and offensive solution.
I have not found any research that claims that people who write short messages in a row want to prevent the other from responding, or wish to prevent the other from messing with their own affairs, or that they enjoy making others uncomfortable, or that the receiving party absolutely suffers from it.
The price of sacrifice
00:03 Hey, I wanted to share with you something that just happened to me at the end of a lecture.
Immediately after I left, someone approached me and told me how much she enjoyed my podcast, and that the lecture was excellent.
I was so happy!
Well, if my friends receive a message like this from me in our WhatsApp group, they will know without a doubt that I have been kidnapped. My actual messages look like this:
00:04 what's the situation?
😍 Have you slept yet?
00:04 Well, you won't believe how cool!
00:04 I had just finished a lecture and was walking towards the car, suddenly someone came up to me in tears
00:04 😲
00:05 She says to me: Paula, can I talk to you for a moment, and I say of course yes, and then...
00:05 She tells me that she listens to my podcast, and through it she realized that she has to change the way she comments to her daughter about her weight
00:05 This excites me like crazy every time
00:05 (sticker of hearts)
00:06 I'm exhausted and awake from a quarter to six, but the comments at the end give me adrenaline
00:06 (My selfie in the car with a funny face)
00:07 I'm really excited about each one as if it's the first time
00:08 I got into the car and now I have to drive from my room home...
00:08 I think I'll stop to buy coffee, I'm done hahahahahaha
00:08 (sticker of dead tired)
This, as mentioned, is an accepted wording in my group of friends.
But - and this is a very important but - when I correspond with someone who wants to receive a price quote from me, I will draft the message in advance, go over it and correct what is necessary, and also limit myself to one message, for the simple reason that this is a business relationship, lacking an emotional element or closeness.
As in many cases in life, there is no black or white when it comes to sending messages on WhatsApp.
Sending several short messages in a row is not suitable for every situation, just as writing a paragraph is not suitable for every situation.
Strong influence
I believe with all my heart in the influence of words, certainly of media people.
From time immemorial a single story has been able to ignite hatred and racism, and even violence, just as a broad story can reconcile and unite people.
There is a line in the song "Knowledge" by Shotti HaNova (words and music: Roy Levy) that has been with me for years:
"They only know that something is good if it is what they know"
This, in my opinion, is an accurate definition of ignorance - to believe that only what is within the scope of your knowledge is proper and true.
I try as hard as I can to check beyond what I knew when I write in the media, and feel a responsibility and even an obligation to tell a diverse story.
And if not - then at least state that I only represent myself.
Paula Rosenberg.
Photo: Or Oren,
This is what my WhatsApp messages look like and it turns out that it doesn't make me a terrible woman. You can be a nice person and also write messages one after the other. And it's even scientifically proven!
Do this to me:
The lecture "The danger of a single story" by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.
Just come in!
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us